The Instigator
Con (against)
9 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Resolved: The United States Legislative Branch should impeach President Barrack Obama from office.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 710 times Debate No: 69688
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




I would like to wish my opponent good luck in this first round of the Beginners Tournament. I would also like to thank him for coming up with the debate resolution.


First round is NOT for acceptance. As Pro, my opponent should make his first argument now. Also, in order to keep the number of rounds fair, Pro shall type "No round as agreed." in the final round.

As it is my opponent who is making the positive claim, and a change in the status quo, he has the full burden of proof. As Con, I am only required to cast doubt on my opponent's claim.

Again, good luck!


I like to wish my opponent luck on this debate as well.

Let's take a look at how a President can get impeached... To get impeached the President has to commit (as defined by the constitution), a "high crime or misdemeanor". To explain further, I shall use theft as an example.

If the President stole something, and if the authorities managed to prove it was the President, the House of Representatives will attempt to pass at least one article of impeachment. If they manage to do this with a "simply majority" vote on it, the President will be impeached. I'm also aware that even though the President gets impeached, he can still remain in office, but if the law he broke is bad enough, he can go to court for a trial and be removed from office through the Judicial branch.

Section 2: CRIMES.
The following is a list of crimes Barak Obama has committed that can easily get him impeached, and why he should be impeached.

*I will only be doing 10 of the 51 reasons for sake of space in the debate. If my opponent or the readers would like to look into it some more, I ask that you check out the website.

1. Obama and William Ayers, a well known terrorist, took money from Chicago's minority education funds, and attempted to convert the students into radicals.

2. Obama transferred 10s of millions of dollars to Valerie Jarrett and Tony Rezko to build low income houses. These houses were built out of what could have been the worst material they could have gotten their hands on. And this was before he was even in office.

3. Obama used illegal money, from foreign credit cards (that were turned off), which allowed people to make more illegal donations to help him in the election.

4. Obama violated our 2nd Amendment by trying to get us under the UN's small arms treaty.

5. Obama tried to give control of the Census Bureau to the Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. I believe this may have been bad because he could have learned almost everything about everyone in the country, or at least the area.

6. Obama provided under the radar amnesty to illegal immigrants by allowing the enforcing ICE laws.

7. Obama allowed USAG Holder to ignore the violations of the immigration laws.

8. Obama has neglected to defend US soil in Arizona when Mexican troops brought in drugs and illegal immigrants. This is a violation of Article iv, Section 4 of the constitution.

9. Obama illegally fired the IG Walpin for investigating Obamas buddy, Mayor Kevin Johnson for fraud with AmeriCorps.

10. Obama is in contempt of Federal Court for his illegal oil drilling moratorium in the Gulf.

All the reasons have that I have listed seem reasonable enough. He has broken multiple laws, has been affiliated with terrorists, and will probably continue to do so. If we allow him to remain in office, we may not have a country anymore, but I shall leave the readers decision left alone, I'll allow my opponent to make his arguments and rebuttals first.

(The resources shall be spaced apart in the order they came in during this round of the debate),
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Pro!

Although I enjoyed reading my opponent's offering, to be candid, I
found his claims to be lacking. Below you will find my response to
what he said.

I use capitalization for emphasis only.


Although my opponent cited the petition2congress website, the text of
the "crimes" were copied and pasted from the website without providing
quotation marks before and after the copy/paste. In the future, in
order to avoid plagiarism, I
humbly suggest my opponent use quotation marks when quoting directly
from a source.


In round one, my opponent describes HOW a President can be impeached.
This isn't what we're debating. Both my opponent and I agree that any
President CAN be impeached. The topic we are debating here is if
President Obama SHOULD be impeached.


My opponent mentioned that a President can be impeached for committing
"high crimes and misdemeanors", but surprisingly didn't give us any
barometer on how to judge if an action rises to the level of "high
crimes and misdemeanors". Simply listing a bunch of alleged "crimes"
is not good enough. As he has the burden of proof, he needs to show us
where the "high crimes" threshold is, and how President Obama has
breached this threshold.


With all due respect to my opponent, his source,
is just that... a petition. Anyone can go on there and say anything
they want without offering any evidence. If you notice, none of the
alleged "crimes" the petitioner is claiming have any accompanying
source. How do we know we can trust the accusations the petitioner is
laying without any evidence? The answer is, we can't. As the person
arguing that President Obama SHOULD be impeached, it's my opponent's
job to provide actual evidence, and not just empty claims.


Several of the "crimes" Pro accuses President Obama of committing have
no obvious connection to what anyone would call a crime. Again, since
my opponent has the full burden of proof of this debate, in order
to win this debate, he has to provide evidence of the following:

1. Demonstrate that President Obama committed a crime.

2. Illustrate how the crime rises to the level of "high crimes and

3. That impeachment would be the best course of action.

4. That impeachment wouldn't do more harm than good. It is this last
one I would like to expand on.

If President Obama is such a bad President, I'm not sure impeachment
wouldn't do more harm than good. After all, when Bill Clinton was
brought up on impeachment charges, the public turned defend him. They
saw it merely as a vindictive witch hunt by the Republicans. Clinton's
approval ratings were 60% before the investigation, and jumped to 64%
during the trial. [1] Afterwards, Republicans failed to gain any seats
in Congress, which in turn only served to increase President Clinton's
power. [2] If history is a good guide to future events (in my
experience it is), the same thing would happen if Obama went through the impeachment process. [3] This is the last thing anyone who thinks
President Obama is a bad President wants to happen.


"Crimes" 1 and 2 took place before Obama became President. Impeachment
is for actions taken by the President while he/she is President. So
with that in mind, 1 and 2 are irrelevant to this debate.






Section 1:
I'd like to start this round by delving deeper into the crimes Obama has committed. For one he "sealed" all information about him. This way we can't see any previous illegal activities, prior to his presidency. This is a bit fishy. Another thing to point out is, he has never been seen holding his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. He also never wears the American flag pin. Obviously he doesn't like America. But the biggest crime I'd like to point out is his bombing another Country illegally. For a President to be able to do this, he has to get permission from Congress, and American lives have to be endangered. When Obama launched bombing runs on Libya, he did so for no reasons (Americans weren't getting hurt), and with out Congress' permission. I'm pretty sure that goes against the constitution, which should be considered a crime in itself. I'd also like to point out that he has also "forgotten" about the illegal immigrant laws, and that the amount of illegals has greatly increased.

Section 2:
In this section I shall discuss where one of the crimes Obama has committed. For this I shall use the bombing of Libya. This was both an act of treason and a First Degree Felony, both of which are punishable by death and/or life in prison.

Section 3:
It is appropriate to impeach a president when he abuses his power, breaks a law (which we have already covered), or fails to uphold his responsibilities. Nixon is the one who knows this best. Though he wasn't technically impeached, he's still the best example for this. Since this debate is not about him, I'll post a resource down below, for those who want to delve into the topic a bit more. Obama needs to be impeached because of fraud, supposed treason, abuse of power, treating allies as enemies and enemies as best buds, and a multitude of other things. There are probably so many reasons, I could sit here all day, if not a month, just listing reasons why he needs to be impeached. So: "Why don't we jsut do it already"?; you may ask. Well the answer is simple. We're just scared of his power. I will discuss this more in the next round.

Section 4:
My opponent claims that "Clinton had a good approval rating" and I'd like to add, just because everyone thinks a President is good, doesn't mean they actually are. To further this I'd like my opponent to know that Obama's approval rating is actually lower than Clinton's was. And you know what? He was still put up for impeachment. Bringing that topic back up, I'd like to ask you this: Why don't people want to impeach him like they should? Well, most of the American population doesn't believe in impeachment, which kind of makes sense, because most of the population consists of illegal immigrants, and who wants to get rid of the guy who let them in? Though many people don't support it, up to 1/3 of the population does. I'd also like to point out the difference between Obama and Clinton: Obama's crimes have hard evidence, or close to hard evidence, either way there is enough to prove that he has committed crimes worth impeachment... Clinton's "crimes" were just wild accusations that no one could provide evidence for. Unless proven otherwise, Obama deserves impeachment more than even Nixon and Clinton.

(If you think that I have missed any reasons for impeachment, or feel that one should have been mentioned, please say so in the comments.)
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks again, Pro for your timely response.


In his last response, my opponent failed to respond to most of my
arguments. This is unfortunate for him, because it is standard debate
protocol to presume all dropped arguments to be true for the remainder
of the debate. [4] Let's recap everything my opponent ignored:

A. Burden of proof

In round two I pointed out that , in order to win this debate, my
opponent has to provide evidence of the following:

1. Demonstrate that President Obama committed a crime.

2. Illustrate how the crime rises to the level of "high crimes and

3. That impeachment would be the best course of action.

4. That impeachment wouldn't do more harm than good.

My opponent didn't attempt to do any of this. He didn't provide us ANY
evidence that:

a. President Obama committed any of these actions.
b. That they are even crimes.
c. That these actions warrant impeachment.

Without doing ANY of these things, there is no way opponent can carry
his burden of proof.

B. Impeachment would do more harm than good

In round two I offered historical evidence to indicate that engaging in
an impeachment trial would do more harm than good. I illustrated how
history indicates that if President Obama was brought up on impeachment
charges, the American public would see him as a victim and the
Republican party would lose support. I then said that this is nothing
an opponent of President Obama should want.

My opponent didn't deny this.


In his last round, my opponent has given us a fresh batch of alleged
"crimes" President Obama has committed. However, much like his
previous list, I fail to see where ANY crime has been committed (much
less a "high crime").

My opponent has, in effect, thrown a handful of darts at a dartboard
hoping to hit a bullseye. Ad one might imagine, however, he keeps

Section 1

For example, what law prohibits "sealing information"? What law
requires "holding your hand over your heart"? What law requires
"wearing a flag pin"? My opponent then goes on to accuse President
Obama of fraud, "supposed" treason (is my opponent unsure of this?),
abuse of power, "treating enemies like buds", and a "multitude" of
"other things". There is only one thing my opponent left out... any
evidence to support his claims. With this in mind, I ask the voters to
disregard all these claims as baseless.

More Questionable Sources,, and are biased, extreme
right wing websites. None of theses sources provide any evidence for
their claims, and as such, cannot be trusted. They're nothing more
than opinionated blogs with no credibility whatsoever. If the case for
impeaching President Obama was such a clear one, we should be able to
find the same information in some reliable, journalistic website.

Section 2

Here my opponent says that President Obama committed "treason" and a
"first degree felony" by bombing Libya. However, as he is prone to do,
he doesn't offer any evidence WHATSOEVER why this should be considered
treason. He needs to show what law this violates, and how the breaking
of the law rises to the level of a treasonous act. Without doing so,
he fails to meet his burden of proof. Until my opponent does this, I
won't be responding to this charge. It's not my job to prove President
Obama didn't do something. Asking someone to prove something didn't
happen is patently unfair.

Section 3

Here Pro tries to expand his case by introducing new charges. He now
accuses President Obama of "abuse of power" and "failure to uphold his
responsibilities". I have to wonder why he didn't introduce these
charges in round one. After all, he had plenty of room to do so.
Having said that, again, Pro provides ZERO evidence to support these
charges, and as such, I reject them as baseless claims. It's silly to
say we're not impeaching the President because "we're afraid of his
power". The reason he's not being impeached is clear... there is no

Section 4

Straw Man Fallacy

In this section, Pro misquoted me and tried to rebut an argument I
never made. Despite what my opponent said, I never said "Clinton has a
good approval rating." So Pro's arguments against what I never said
should be disregarded as the straw man argument it is [5]. What I
ACTUALLY indicated was the fact that President Clinton's approval
INCREASED after the impeachment process began. This ended up doing
more harm than good for those who opposed him. That's the analogy I'm
making to Clinton. As I showed round two, his approval ratings went
up, and Republicans didn't gain any seats in Congress. So based on
historical evidence, we have reason to believe that impeachment charges
could do more harm than good for those who would want him impeached,
and it's up to Pro to show otherwise.

Pro then goes on to make the ridiculous claim that the reason most
Americans don't want President Obama to be impeached is because "most
of the population consists of illegal immigrants". This is not only a
silly argument, but my source proves it wrong (the poll was
of registered voters). Having said that, the argument, even IF true is
irrelevant. That's because regardless of the status of American
citizens, if they don't want a President impeached, attempting to
impeach them will affect campaign funding negatively for the opposing
party. So EVEN IF President Obama is a monster, trying to impeach him now
would do more harm than good.

Finally, I would like to respond to my opponent's claim concerning the
difference between President Clinton and Obama. Pro says the
difference is that case against President Obama contains "hard
evidence" or "close to hard evidence". I have a couple of problems
with these comments. First, if Pro only has "close" to hard evidence,
then he can't possibly win this debate. "Close enough" is not good
enough when deciding if someone SHOULD be impeached. Remember, we're
not debating if the President COULD be impeached; we're debating if he
SHOULD be impeached. Second, despite his claims, Pro has provided
ZERO "hard evidence" to support his claims that President Obama should
be impeached. If the case against President Obama was so clear, we
should be able to find tons of evidence from reputable sources. Without
doing so, Pro will be unable to meet his burden of proof.


I'm not usually one to accuse someone of a conduct violation, but having said that, I think my opponent's final comments were inappropriate. Soliciting other members to help build your case for you is crossing the line.




I'd like to thank my opponent for his false points of arguments. I actually did everything my opponent has said that I didn't, I just worded it differently. My opponent should have read closer.

Section 1:
Obama has been funding the Al- Qaeda ever since the beginning. The source I shall post at the bottom of this section has multiple links to different articles that will show my opponent and the readers proof of these activities. I shall share with the readers and my opponent one of these articles.

Obama and a "co- worker" have been found working with terrorists a group of terrorists. But this is not the first time. Obama and said "co- worker" are part of the group known as Code Pink. The writer of this article says he/she has written multiple articles on this group for their apparent well known terrorist activities. Multiple democrats were pulled into an investigation interview for these activities, all but one showed due to "visa problems", though this is doubted because of his suspected terrorist activities. Al Karama, and Code Pink were declared terrorist by the National Treasury, as were most of their Yemen supporters. Barak Obama, being part of Code Pink, is obviously marked a terrorist. Though, most people should know this by now if they paid attention to his activities.

*I would like to ask my opponent to read a few of the articles in the link before he/she jumps to conclusion about my argument like my opponent has been doing this entire debate.

Section 2:
Obama told law enforcement, to let drunk drivers keep on driving. This is putting lives at stake, therefore he is technically committing murder, which is against the law, and in his case considered treason, the highest level of crime you can reach. Namely this takes effect on the American-Mexican border. This may seem a bit coincidental, because a Mexican who is trying to sneak into America, can just act drunk, and the police and/or border patrol can't do anything about it. Fox News has uncovered that this does pertain to illegal immigrants.

I would have carried this round further but I am short on time, I would like to thank my opponent once again, and I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 3


Thanks Pro!


Despite my opponent's claims to the contrary, I maintain that he has
ignored/dropped MANY of my arguments. I would assert the reason he has
done so is because he is unable to challenge them. But don't take my
word for it. I ask the voters themselves to search Pro's arguments and
ask themselves the following questions:

1. Did Pro actually offer any credible sources to support his claims?
I would assert the answer is no. Here are some examples of what can
only be called questionable sources at best:,, and

2. Did Pro demonstrate how President Obama committed a crime?
Remember, accusing someone isn't enough. Pro has always needed to
DEMONSTRATE exactly what the president did, and how he did it. He
still hasn't done so.

3. Has Pro shown how these alleged crimes rise to the level of "high
crimes and misdeamoners" (as required by the Constitution)? Has he
shown us where the threshold is and how the President breached this
threshold? Clearly he has not.

4. Has Pro shown impeachment to be the best course of action?
Obviously impeachment wouldn't be the only possibility when it comes to
disciplining an infraction. Nowhere has Pro done this.

5. Finally, has Pro shown that impeachment wouldn't do more harm than
good? No, he.has not.

Remember, in order to carry his burden of proof, Pro must do ALL of
these things. It should be easy for him to prove that he has dome
them. I challenge him to point to the specific round and arguments for
each of the above requirements. If he has failed to do even ONE of the
above requirements, he cannot carry his burden of proof, and I win by


As I pointed out, my opponent has dropped my analysis of what it would take for him to meet the burden of proof. It's too late to deny this now. I especially want everyone to notice that Pro has made NO ATTEMPT to deny my positive argument that he must show impeachment wouldn't do more harm than good. The problem is, he hasn't even TRIED to do this. Pro must attempt to rebuild all of his round three arguments in his next round, or they will be presumed to be false.


Section 1

Funding Terrorism?

Pro's source,, really isn't a source. All it is is a
bunch of links to other websites. It offers zero evidence whatsoever.
If he thought the links the website listed were credible, he should
have sourced them instead. The one link found on the website that
claims President Obama gave money to Al Qaeda has been completely
discredited ny the Huffington Post:

"Brown's arguments for impeachment at the time were largely based on
misleading, out-of-context, or just plain false claims. Brown repeated
many of the same bogus arguments in an Oct. 25, 2009, WND column." [6]

Code Pink and Terrorism

Even IF Code Pink has worked with terrorists, neither of the "sources"
Pro uses give ANY evidence that President Obama is a member of the
group. With that in mind, there's no further response needed
concerning this issue.

Section 2

EVEN IF President has told border patrol agents to ignore drunk drivers, Pro has failed to show us what crime has been committed. What's the name of this crime? How has it reached the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Treason is defined as: 1. "the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign." [7] With this in mind, how could this be considered treason? The answer is, it can't. My opponent's argument is false.

Conduct Reminder

My opponent only has one round left to make his argument. According to the rules of the debate, he is not allowed to make any argument in round five.





First of all, my opponent stated that I was rebutting an argument that never existed when I talked about Clinton. I would like to say in response that I wasn't trying to rebuttal. I was creating a new argument. Obviously my opponent isn't intelligent enough to realize this.

Due to the lack of time to post this debate.
All points extended.
Please read further into the resources that I have posted in earlier arguments.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent has said, "All points extended.", but I'm left with some

I am not sure what Pro would like to extend. Would it be the many
charges he has made and dropped over the course of this debate? Perhaps
it's the many biased and pointless citations that he also dropped round
after round? Or maybe he's referring to all the unwarranted points he
slipped into nearly every argument he made?

The sad part is, you could extend all of this analysis, every last
word, and you would still have to vote Con due to the completely
unaddressed burdens analysis. All you have to do is look at points #3 (is impeachment the best course of action)
and #4 (would impeachment do more harm than good). Note that I have produced the only argument that seeks to
address it, and then note that Pro's only argument that could even be
construed as a rebuttal - the Clinton argument - he just blatantly
ADMITTED was a new argument with no relevance to the point.

Voters, it doesn't matter what you believe from Pro's arguments. You
can believe every word, extend every point, treat all of his
unwarranted claims as high crimes, and even believe that Obama is
Lucifer incarnate. It doesn't matter, because none of it proves that
impeachment is the best course of action. The only party that could
feasibly carry this out has a major disincentive against doing it -
they know it will just strengthen Obama's position and harm their
future prospects. Whether Obama is the embodiment of all evil or not
makes no difference so long as there's NEGATIVE incentive to pursue


Pro said I am not "intelligent enough" to understand his points. Unfortunately, this type of rude behavior is not surprising to me. In my experience, when someone realizes that they have no evidence or logic to support their claims, they often resort to ad hominem attacks. I ask the voters to recognize this as the type of desperate attempt that it is.

This concludes this debate. As stated in the rules established in round one, Pro is not allowed to make any arguments this round. He is only allowed to type "No round as agreed."

I think the choice is clear. Please vote Con.


No round as agreed upon.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting discussion!
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
Yeah, I figured that vote could possibly be removed. I appreciate bluesteel for commenting about the removal. There's really no other way someone can know they've lost a vote otherwise.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
1Credo. 3 points to Con (arguments). Reason for removal: merely stating that Pro failed to meet the BoP is not a sufficient explanation for *why* Con had more convincing arguments. An explanation is required for *why* Pro failed to meet the BoP or *how* Con was able to sufficiently undermine Pro's case so that Pro could not meet the BoP.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro was unable to carry the burden of proof in this debate, and as such the resolution does not stand.

- bluesteel (Voting Moderator)
Posted by Dpowell 1 year ago
Why thank you. And I apologize for having to extend my points, I was busy and when I got on I had 7-10 minutes left on the clock. Not much I could have done there. Especially since it takes me about an hour to do one section.

Either way I enjoyed debating with you con.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
That was a very interesting debate, Pro.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TBR 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - I would have this to con simply for the derogatory meme Pro posted. It was off-topic and unnecessary. I did not, but it set a tone that was not effective for his case. Argument - Pro had a uphill battle with this one. He never came close to the BoP. There was little that even hinted to a case for impeachment. | Sources - Pros use of a petition was weak. Since I didn't ding for conduct with the MEME, I add that to the source links. It was completely useless for the debate, and served to lessen his case.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: sourcing a link portal is... not exactly the best course of action, one is allow to quote and cite. Pro never brought why what was illegal. I think the best argument at hand was the Libya strike extension, but... it was never flesh out as to why it was a crime. BoP not satisfied, and this was routinely enumerated by Con. Conduct: asking people to read closer, and questioning intelligence isn't in good decorum.